Author
Topic: Studio shoot, 5D MarkII or MarkIII (Read 6912 times)

I have the privilege of having the problem of having to choose between a MarkII or MarkIII for a studio workshop. I know the differences between the 2 will be minimal, but I'm curious which one y'all would pick for a studio lit, low ISO photoshoot. People on here say that AA filter on the MkIII is stronger than the MkII which leads me to think the MkII would be a better choice; but then I'm sacrificing the AF of the MkIII which to my understanding has a "finer" focus than the 5D MarkII which might come in handy if I'm going to do any shallow DOF pictures (with a ND filter since the studio light is going to be too bright for apertures that large). Thanks for the help!

The 5DIII is better than the 5DII in every way, soup to nuts. Not always hugely better, sometimes even only insignificantly better for certain applications, but always better.

...except, of course, for price.

So, if price isn't a factor -- and you seem to be indicating that it's not -- then it's a no-brainer.

That writ, studio work, where, presumably, you're shooting with well-balanced strobes at ISO 100 and f/8 - f/11, the only time you'll see a difference with any camera on the market today is when printing on a machine that's too big to sit on a desktop (or when pixel peeping). Resolution isn't a factor at desktop printer sizes, and dynamic range is a moot point when you can push a lever or position a reflector or whatever to tame the light to whatever it needs to be. Noise, of course, is also a non-factor at ISO 100. Keep going down the list and, again, unless you're printing big, only ergonomics really differentiates a Rebel with a kit lens from a 1Dx with L glass in the studio.

(Again, just to be clear: I'm assuming studio strobes in typical use and 13" x 19" prints and smaller, no significant cropping, etc., etc., etc. Atypical use of strobes, window light, all sorts of other factors could easily skew the equation all sorts of ways.)

I have both and the difference is studio shooting is invisible. The greatest difference is in the subjective feel and handling. The great advantage of the studio is being able to control conditions so the image will look its best despite the limitations of the camera.

I would go for the mkII and buy together a specific lens, like ts-e 90 or a 100 macro .If you don't need the lens, i would the same go with the MKII unless you need to use the camera for other application. The AF is not going to be important, i would use live view, all the same i would use the EG-S focusing screen that lets you see better focus accuracy and that it is not avalaible for the MKIII. Diego

I do little in the way of studio work, but the MkIII does come into its own if it is a fast moving shoot. If you have the time to focus manually (especially at wide apertures), then there is no difference. but if you have to react quickly, then the AF of the MkIII is invaluable, due to the speed and accuracy of the AF system and also the number of points, which adds flexibility on placement.

The 5DIII is better than the 5DII in every way, soup to nuts. Not always hugely better, sometimes even only insignificantly better for certain applications, but always better.

...except, of course, for price.

So, if price isn't a factor -- and you seem to be indicating that it's not -- then it's a no-brainer.

That writ, studio work, where, presumably, you're shooting with well-balanced strobes at ISO 100 and f/8 - f/11, the only time you'll see a difference with any camera on the market today is when printing on a machine that's too big to sit on a desktop (or when pixel peeping). Resolution isn't a factor at desktop printer sizes, and dynamic range is a moot point when you can push a lever or position a reflector or whatever to tame the light to whatever it needs to be. Noise, of course, is also a non-factor at ISO 100. Keep going down the list and, again, unless you're printing big, only ergonomics really differentiates a Rebel with a kit lens from a 1Dx with L glass in the studio.

(Again, just to be clear: I'm assuming studio strobes in typical use and 13" x 19" prints and smaller, no significant cropping, etc., etc., etc. Atypical use of strobes, window light, all sorts of other factors could easily skew the equation all sorts of ways.)